1 / 22

Nb-Ti Options for LHC IR Upgrade

Nb-Ti Options for LHC IR Upgrade. Nb-Ti options for an LHC IR upgrade have been studied since 2004:. - main motivation was to introduce operation margins for the nominal / ultimate LHC operation - provide an alternative solutions for the US Nb 3 Sn proposal

paul-bennett
Download Presentation

Nb-Ti Options for LHC IR Upgrade

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Nb-Ti Options for LHC IR Upgrade Nb-Ti options for an LHC IR upgrade have been studied since 2004: - main motivation was to introduce operation margins for the nominal / ultimate LHC operation - provide an alternative solutions for the US Nb3Sn proposal (technology / feasibility) b* = 0.25m & ultimate intensities could provide L = 4 1034cm-2sec-1 Main challenges for a Nb-Ti solution: -radiation protection: Nb-Ti lifetime = 700 fb-1 L = 4 1034cm-2sec-1 350 fb-1 / year  2 year operation only? • Heat deposition and magnet cooling in long triplet assembly • magnetic TAS option discussed since WAMDO 2002 -limited peak field New CNI proposal provides official mandate for Nb-Ti studies at CERN PAF meeting; April 2007 1

  2. Phased LHC IR Upgrade Plan Phase I: Increase operation margins for the LHC as fast as possible in order to achieve nominal performance in an efficient operation mode: • Provide more aperture margins in the LHC triplet magnets. • Use the existing LHC magnet cables and tooling where possible. • Prepare a solution that can be installed in a relatively short shutdown by 2011. • Natural evolution of the LUMI’05 and LUMI’06 discussions • The Phase I upgrade aims at a peak luminosity of L = 1-4 1034cm-2sec-1 • It does not replace the previously discussed ‘ambitious’ upgrade for a peak luminosity increase of one order of magnitude! PAF meeting; April 2007 2

  3. Phased LHC IR Upgrade Plan Phase I: Main milestones (Lyn Evans): • Develop short Nb-Ti magnet prototype by middle 2009. • Full length prototype by 2010. • Requires that detailed optics and layout designs are finished by 2007. • Requires that detailed Dynamic Aperture, field quality specification and corrector package definition heat deposition studies are finished by 2008. PAF meeting; April 2007 3

  4. Phased LHC IR Upgrade Plan Phase II Identify new IR layouts and magnet technologies that allow a ten fold increase in the nominal LHC luminosity: • Prepare a solution that can withstand the radiation for operation with L = 1035 cm-2 sec-1 • The Phase II upgrade should be implemented once the Phase I solution reaches the end of the magnet lifetime (700 fb-1 for Nb-Ti)  after 2 to 3 years of the Phase I upgrade operation assuming the upgrade operation reaches L = 3 1034cm-2sec-1  earliest installation by 2015 PAF meeting; April 2007 4

  5. IR consists of DS, MS, D1-D2, Triplet: D1 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q1 Q2 Q3 D1 IP 2 x 23 m 35 m 35 m 24 m 24 m ca. 10 long range interactions ca. 10 long range interactions 13 long range interactions Nominal LHC IR Layout PAF meeting, April 2007 Oliver Brüning 5

  6. Phase 1 Upgrade Options There are currently 4 proposals for a Nb-Ti based IR upgrade, each based on a different driving design criteria: • ‘Compact Low Gradient’ IR design: optimized for compactness and maximum aperture margin • ‘Modular Low Gradient’ IR design: optimized for simple spare magnet policy and magnet production (1 magnet type only) • ‘Minimum b-max’: optimized for minimum peak b-function inside the final focus system (minimization of the chromatic aberrations) • Scaled Nb-Ti solution: Parameter choice based on optics and magnet scaling laws PAF meeting; April 2007 6

  7. 4 functional magnet elements: ‘Compact Low Gradient’ IR Design • provide 2 parameters for b-max control and 2 for controlling b-functions in Matching Section IP QX1 QX2a QX2b QX3 D1 D1 QX3 QX2b QX2a QX1 2 x 23 m 68 m 68 m nominal LHC layout value ca. 25 long range interactions • controlling b-function in MS facilitates dispersion matching  longer triplet section increases number of long range collisions PAF meeting, April 2007 Oliver Brüning 7

  8. bmax = 17.2km  s = 2.94mm  23s margin ‘Compact Low Gradient’ IR Design • choice of specialized magnet modules • QX1: 12.24m, 91.5T/m  86.5mm min aperture; • QX2a: 14.2m, 68.3T/m  111mm min aperture; QX2b: 11m, 68.3T/m  111mm min aperture; QX3: 14.75m, 68.3T/m  111mm min aperture; • -implement standard inter module space •  1m for inter-connect and corrector elements •  total ‘Triplet’ length = 60 m (31m) PAF meeting, April 2007 Oliver Brüning 8

  9. ‘Compact Low Gradient’ IR Design Main benefits • provides potential aperture margins of 23 s for 6.5T peak field at coil  what is the maximum attainable peak field for Nb-Ti?  what is the maximum attainable coil diameter for Nb-Ti? • future studies require the following additional studies: -specification of field quality tolerances and required corrector packages -calculation of the heat and radiation deposition and identification of potential locations for dedicated absorber masks -specification of the maximum acceptable chromatic aberration Main drawbacks • it requires specialized magnet types and features large chromatic aberrations PAF meeting; April 2007 9

  10. 4 functional magnet elements: D1 QX4 QX3 QX2 QX1 QX1 QX2 QX3 QX4 D1 IP 2 x 23 m 75 m (35) 75 m (35) nominal LHC layout value ca. 27 long range interactions ca. 27 long range interactions ‘Modular Low Gradient’ IR Design • provide 2 parameters for b-max control and 2 for controlling b-functions in Matching Section • controlling b-function in MS facilitates dispersion matching  longer triplet section increases number of long range collisions PAF meeting, April 2007 Oliver Brüning 10

  11. bmax = 14.4km  s = 2.69mm  13s / (1s) margin ‘Modular Low Gradient’ IR Design • 2 magnet modules: 4.8m long with 2 gradients: • QX1: 2 modules, 116T/m  82mm min aperture; • QX2a: 4 modules, 88.5T/m  110mm min aperture; QX2b: 4 modules, 88.5T/m  110mm min aperture; QX3: 2 modules, 88.5T/m  110mm min aperture; • -implement standard inter module space •  1m for inter-connect and corrector elements •  total ‘Triplet’ length = 75 m (31m) PAF meeting, April 2007 Oliver Brüning 11

  12. ‘Modular Low Gradient’ IR Design Main benefits • provides potential aperture margins of 13 s for 6.5T peak field at coil • simplified spare magnet policy (only two magnet types and 1 length) • features slightly smaller chromatic aberrations • future studies require the following additional studies: -specification of field quality tolerances and required corrector packages -calculation of the heat and radiation deposition and identification of potential locations for dedicated absorber masks -specification of the maximum acceptable chromatic aberration Main drawbacks • it requires specialized powering for each unit • it offers reduced aperture margins compared to compact design PAF meeting; April 2007 12

  13. 3 functional magnet elements: D1 QX3 QX2 QX1 QX1QX2 QX3 D1 IP 2 x 24 m 40 m (35) 40 m (35) ca. 15 long range interactions ca. 15 long range interactions ‘Minimum b-max’ & ‘Scaled’ IR Design PAF meeting, April 2007 Oliver Brüning 13

  14. bmax = 12.2km  s = 2.47mm no aperture margin ‘Minimum b-max’ & ‘Scaled’ IR Design • choice of standard magnet module for each unit •  QX1: 1 module 7.5m, 168 T/m, 76mm min aperture •  QX2: 3 modules 5.75m, 122T/m, 105mm min aperture •  QX3: 3 modules 4.9m, 122T/m, 105mm min aperture; • -implement standard inter module space •  1m for inter-connect and corrector elements •  total ‘Triplet’ length = 40 m PAF meeting, April 2007 Oliver Brüning 14

  15. ‘Minimum b-max’ & ‘Scaled’ IR Design Main benefits • smaller peak b-functions and thus smaller chromatic aberrations • future studies require the following additional studies: -specification of field quality tolerances and required corrector packages -calculation of the heat and radiation deposition and identification of potential locations for dedicated absorber masks Main drawbacks • it requires specialized magnet types and powering for each unit • it no longer offers aperture margins for b* = 0.25m and a peak field of 6.5T PAF meeting; April 2007 15

  16. Phase 1 Upgrade Study Needs Summary of the available information for the Phase 1 options PAF meeting; April 2007 16

  17. General Upgrade Study Needs There are several R&D needs common to all options • TAS absorber modifications (aperture) / upgrade (efficiency). • D1 dipole magnet design (aperture and reduced distance to D2). • D2 dipole magnet design (reduced distance to D1). • Potential need / benefit for upgrading some matching section quadrupole magnets (e.g. an additional MQM module for Q6).  Triplet orbit corrector magnets need to be specified and designed. • Triplet coupling and non-linear corrector elements need to be specified and designed. • Cooling system for the final focus and D1 magnets. • Tertiary collimators and their impact on the machine protection and collimation system need to be studied PAF meeting; April 2007 17

  18. General Upgrade Study Needs Required studies that go beyond new IR design: An efficient and reliable LHC operation above nominal beam intensities requires additional consolidation of some key accelerator components: • Phase 2 collimation system. • Replacement of LINAC2 (-> LINAC4) . • Replacement of the PS and its power converter (-> PS2). • Upgrade of the SPS. • All the above studies are part of the CERN ‘White Paper’. The LINAC4 preparatory studies are part of the CARE FP6 studies and the LHC Phase 2 collimation system is already part of USLARP PAF meeting; April 2007 18

  19. General Upgrade Study Needs There are important upgrade options that could be beneficial for both LHC IR upgrade Phases (see LUMI’06): • Long range beam-beam wire compensation. • Electron lenses for head-on beam-beam compensation. • CRAB cavities and CRAB waist operation. • Studies related to a more efficient TAS absorber and triplet magnet protection.  Studies related to the suppression of the electron cloud effect. • Upgrade studies for the LHC injector complex. • Studies related to understanding the beam-beam effects and limits. • Studies related to understanding limits imposed by chromatic aberrations All the above options should be studied for both upgrade Phases! PAF meeting; April 2007 19

  20. General comments on collaboration needs Efficient coordination: Meeting the ambitious milestones for the two upgrade phases requires an efficient coordination of the R&D activities and the beam dynamic and optics studies within CERN and USLARP • Past experience has shown that one or two meetings on a yearly basis (WAMDO and LHC LUMI workshops) might not be sufficient for the timescale of the Phase 1 upgrade! (e.g. studies related to the magnetic TAS option and the optics design studies at LUMI’05 and LUMI’06) • A clear definition of work packages and their priorities and milestones would be desirable PAF meeting; April 2007 20

  21. Potential USLARP Contributions Studies specifically beneficial for Phase 1 upgrade studies: -all optics studies are expected to be finalized at CERN by this summer -USLARP contributions could include: • tracking studies and field quality specification for ‘Compact’ option • specification of the required corrector packages for the ‘Compact’ option  energy deposition studies for all options • study of the required TAS and TAN modifications  Study and design of new D1 and D2 separation dipole magnets PAF meeting; April 2007 21

  22. Potential USLARP Contributions Studies specifically beneficial for Phase 2 upgrade studies: -Optics studies for the 25ns option are expected to be finalized at CERN by this summer. -USLARP contributions could include: • slim magnet design for a D0 • slim quadrupole doublet design  energy deposition studies for all options • study of the required TAS and TAN modifications PAF meeting; April 2007 22

More Related